Laserfiche WebLink
4.A. - Page 57 of 98 <br />PICK <br />PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER <br />In what follows, the data for the polls and themes of the community dialogue sessions will be <br />presented as collected during the six sessions. <br />The Virtual Community Dialogue Sessions <br />A total of 405 community members registered to attend six virtual community dialogues via the <br />Zoom platform, four in English, one in Spanish, and one directed at youth. The following <br />numbers consider the city representatives and facilitators in the registration and attendance for <br />each session. Of the community members that registered, 347 attended the sessions, which the <br />Zoom platform accounts for as "unique users." The unique users account for participants that <br />logged in and out, especially when logging in at different times and for different periods during <br />the two-hour sessions. The dialogues most attended were the four English sessions, which had <br />314 community members registered and 277 unique users attending. For the Spanish session, the <br />registration was for 30 community members registered, and 26 unique users attended. The youth <br />session had 61 registered and 43 unique users attending (Table 1). <br />Table 1. Registration and Attendance <br />Community Dialogue Sessions Registration Attendance <br />By Sessions <br />Session 1 - English <br />83 <br />81 <br />Session 2 - Spanish <br />30 <br />26 <br />Session 3 - Youth <br />61 <br />43 <br />Session 4 - English <br />103 <br />72 <br />Session 5 - English <br />36 <br />30 <br />Session 6 - English <br />95 <br />94 <br />By Groups <br />English Sessions <br />314 <br />277 <br />Spanish Session <br />30 <br />26 <br />Youth Session <br />61 <br />43 <br />The feedback collected from the community dialogues for each session was twofold: polls and <br />small -group discussions. First, polls were collected on the demographics (i.e., age, gender, race), <br />perspectives on social issues (i.e., inclusion, police, funding), and session evaluations (i.e., <br />meeting effectiveness). Second, notes were collected from the small -group discussions where the <br />participants answered four questions regarding their experience with racial equity in Redwood <br />City. The questions in the small -groups asked the participants (a) what they liked about the city, <br />(b) what experiences they had with racial equity, (c) what needs to be addressed, and (d) what <br />suggestions they had to address them. The breakout rooms had a facilitator and notetaker to <br />capture the participant's answers as they shared their thoughts on each question (Table 1). <br />The Community Dialogue Polls <br />For each of the six sessions, several anonymous polls were conducted during the dialogue to <br />gauge the audience and provide transparency about who was attending that evening and how <br />they were feeling about the discussion. About 176 community members participated in the polls <br />from the people that attended and stayed, which varied according to when the poll was <br />conducted. In the beginning, the first poll (demographic) had the most participation, and the last <br />poll (evaluation) had the least as people left the sessions. Below are the submissions collected <br />5 <br />